PPL with Mutli engine rating. Is this a good idea

[echobeach]

I have searched the archives and cant find a clear answer to this so I hope I am not covering well trodden ground.

I have just started my MER in a Seneca II. This has been tremendous fun and a great challenge. I am already unable to think about anything else other than getting back in the air in this plane. :)

Compared to the usual hire craft I fly this plane is packed with all the kit and gizmos that would make long distance touring something that Mrs Echobeach may join me on.

However I am concerned that I may have made an error in doing my MER.

Firstly like the forbidden fruit the temptation will be there to fly twins (an expensive endeavor it seems)
Secondly it seems that whilst hiring a good condition single with decent kit may be difficult, it is not impossible. There seem however to be very few twins for hire.

Does this mean I will not use the rating much. Am I committed to joining a group if I wish to fly one regularly. Am I making a mistake that most PPLs flying once or twice a week don’t go on to use a MER very often as I appreciate that currency in a twin will be especially important.

I fly from an airfield just north of London. I would very much like to know what other PPls not going on to commercial flying have done with an MER

[MIKECR]

if you've got the money and you enjoy doing it then crack on! You may wish to consider an IR as well, and be able to put the aircraft to its full capacity, assuming its kitted for airways and deiced etc.

[echobeach]

Thanks for that. I am working on the vain hope that if it takes half as long to get somewhere it will cost the same as the arrow i normally fly. This is how I have probably incorrectly rationalised the cost as I suspect I will now fly twice as far! I think I should have done this for a living but I am too old for that now.

[mcgoo]

It might take you half as long but with 2 engines it will cost twice the fuel and twice the maintenance :}

[MIKECR]

If its a seneca your in then sadly the arrow is probably nearly as quick.

[stickandrudderman]

Do the sums. You'll find that the twin is a lot more expensive for not much more in the way of capability, unless you regularly fly with more than two up.
Have you looked at some of the faster singles?
They work out faster and cheaper according to my calculations.

[beerdrinker]

If you are going to do any over water flying a twin is much better. It gives you a much more relaxed feeling, and your partner will be happier. It gives you the opportunity of flying more direct routes across water (eg the Channel) in a more relaxed frame of mind.

I fly a Twin Comanche and regularly fly to the south west of France. You would not get me doing that in an Arrow.

[englishal]

There are non-capital groups around where you can "rent" the Twin Star for £100 per hour dry. Of course fuel, being Jet A is cheap, and 5 gals/hr per side, so the overall costs is not going to be much....Compare this to a seneca drinking 30 gals/hr of Avgas :eek:

[echobeach]

this is really useful advice. I was hoping to use the twin for longer trips including norway and sweden where there may be longer water crossings. The aztec and seneca 2 i have flown so far seem really stable and great for long tours.
My concern was i would complete mer and find too few options to rent. Looks as if may need to stop mrs eb shopping trips for a while !

[outside_loop]

the turbo arrow is basically a 1 engine seneca. (dont buy one though - its ok, but there are nicer, more modern a/c available now with modern engines and all the trimmings). the arrow will carry fewer people but at the same speed. Depends how much load you want to take.
Also depends whether you want to fly in IMC. Its a personal choice, but i'm not a fan of this in a single engined plane.

[shy_one]

I have a MEP rating on my PPL and have no intention of going commercial, but I do have access to a very cheap twin due to a few connections otherwise I would not be able to afford to keep it up.


Shy_one

[mothflyer]

I too have a MEPL rating on a fairly low houred (300+) PPL and I really enjoyed the challenge of training and flying it on longer trips abroad. I always flew it with another equally qualified pilot to share the workload and lighten the costs also as I didnt feel 'that' confident to go alone, we had fun and learned a whole heap.

However, it worked well with other like minded folk and freinds around, I had to move away due work and I've let it lapse as I cant justify the expense as I would basically have to start the process over again, finding new freinds (who I trust to fly a multi with) and a not so expensive twin.

If I could tick those boxes again, I'd go back to flying one tomorrow.

[Mouton Rothschild]

echobeach,

This is a very exciting time. I was exactly the same with my first multi engine type. I would skin myself out just to fund another lesson! Happy days. I hope you don't mind me offering a little advice and that you accept it in the spirit in which it's given. You mentioned that one of the things you wanted to do in the PA34 was to go further afield, possibly to Scandinavia. You didn't mention any instrument qualification, so I'm assuming they are yet to come. To remain VMC across such an expanse of water, probably means that you may spend a lengthy period of time at lower levels. Of course, many modern aircraft have GPS, but bear in mind that at these lower levels your VHF nav equipment will be out of range, so will your VHF radio, - it will get very quiet! It is a great comfort when your Nav aids agree with the GPS, but you will be relying on GPS and maybe Ded reckoning. My advice would be to take someone experienced with you the first time, and don't get caught in the dark across the North Sea. If I sound a little like an old fogey, then I apologise, but I've been there and I found it a little scary. Very best of luck with your training.

[echobeach]

Sound advice duly noted. I have an imc and 40hours or so on instruments around uk. I am not planning any very long water crossings but as dover - cap gris nez is about my limit at the moment with a single it will be good to be able to just take a slightly more direct route cross water.
I planned some routes to Norway last year and even the shorter sea crossings from denmark to sweden or norway where rather longer than I liked the look of. In the end the weather forced us to fly south to spain so it was not an issue.
I fly with a more experienced PPL on all our long trips so there is always someone to help with the workload.
Point taken about VHF Nav Aids and low level crossings. Decided PPL-IR would come next after MER !

[IO540]

I don't fly a twin, but some things are readily apparent

- they cost 2x more to fly than a single, for more or less the same speed

- if > 1999kg, they cost 3x more to fly than a < 1999kg plane when under IFR

- they cost 2x more to maintain, age for age, condition for condition, but most pistons twins around are very old

- if I was doing my PPL again I would do it in a complex single from day 1 and not in Tomahawks, Cessnas, etc which was just a waste of ~ 120hrs before I got into something real. The big problem is finding instructors in the UK, willing to take that on. Most of them would cringe and have a go at you for wanting to run before you can walk, "young man" ;)

The piston twin to watch is the DA42 - once they get the engines reliable.

A turboprop single is an order of magnitude less likely to go down than a piston twin, and while a SE TP would probably cost even more to run than a piston twin, it won't be all that much more.

Sadly, there are virtually no unpressurised TP singles (for IFR touring; there are ones for rough work e.g. Caravan, and para dropping) so one is immediately paying for all the extras, plus (Jetprop excepted) one is > 2000kg which for IFR approx. equals 2x on the fuel cost.

[rmac]

IO540

I was thinking of swapping my 303 for a Meridian. Trust me once you take the cost of capital in to consideration, and the depreciation, the costs really do differ considerably.

As with everything, its about mission, I bought my 303 in Australia when I had 250hrs and 50 twin and then added 50% to my twin time flying it up to Singapore, where I was based. Subsequently many a time flying over waypoints above thick jungle, I was happy to have two engines.

Now back in Europe, every now and again I think of changing her, up, down, sideways, but I've got her just how I like her, we've been together five years, and the equivalent of the additional capital cost of buying an SR22 or DA42 for that matter will keep me in fuel and airways fees for years !

[IO540]

Rmac

I can see where you are coming from on an "old" piston twin v. newer Meridian comparison, but how does it stack up if you ignore capital costs / depreciation?

I don't know how old your twin is but let's say it is 25 years old. Depreciation will be zero now, but the total operating cost will likely be high.

[echobeach]

Well, I have an answer to this question (Misspelt in thread title). Absolutely! :ok:

Just completed MER in Seneca Turbo.

Like doing the IMC I feel this has raised my game to a whole new level. Just doing a written exam on the plane itself means that I feel I know more about the tech aspects of this craft than anything else I have flown. I should know all the craft I fly to this detail and will do so.

I was taught to call every speed in approach, cruise, landing etc i.e. ‘speed below 129 gear down’ and this is a great discipline.

Forgetting that I found every minute of flying this twin hugely enjoyable I have found this has raised my game in flying singles as well.

I can strongly recommend this if you get the chance, even if not flying MER very often.

Now just need to find one to hire from where I fly.

Perhaps one small step closer to flying a DC3 !

[S-Works]

I have several hundred hours in twins, Seneca, Duchess, Navajo, DA42 etc and now thanks to a very nice man a couple in a 421C. With the exception of the high end twins like the Navajo and the 421C the lighter twins do not offer much over and above a single other than the mindset of 2 engines.

I moved over to a Malibu, single engine but cruises at 220KTAS and upto 25,000ft pressurised with weather radar etc. All for less than the cost of operating any twin including the DA42 and much more capable.

Flying twins is great fun and requires great currency and discipline and is not something I intend on giving up but there is something rather attractive about true all weather capability and lower costs from a high end single. Yes I would cross the alps and large chunks of water. Have you seen the glide distance from 25,000ft?

The next move looks like it is going to be SET for the extra performance and ceiling.

[First_Principal]

echobeach, personal interest - why the DC3?

FP.

[Keygrip]

Another thought - especially for those who bang on about potential engine failure during over water crossings......using an old twin (as opposed to an old single) doubles your chances of having that engine failure.

Now you could be in the same low level, inclement weather, no VHF nav aids situation - but asymmetric, too! Deep joy.

Risk assessment is a wonderful thing, eh? Anybody know where I can rent a Trislander?

Doh! That triples my chance of an engine failure!

[Mouton Rothschild]

echobeach,

May I be the first to congratulate you on your MER. It will indeed up your game having 2 engines to look after. Well done!

[BartV]

Keygrip, that argument is just plain stupid. I guess people use it to justify the fact they are flying a SE.

Many SE pilots had engine faillures and emergency landed in a rough field.

Many ME pilots had an engine faillure or a precautionairy shutdown in flight and landed on an airport.

You make the choice.

Dead fatality accident rate is higher in Twins because: landing with 1 engine is not always noted at for ex. NTSB so these emergencies aren't logged, Twins fly in much more adverse weather, so when something goes really wrong in a twin, it goes really wrong. Just as it would be in a SE. If you are current and within limits you are less likely to get into a flat spin so IMHO flying twins IS safer.

[IO540]

There is no doubt an engine failure in a twin is at least 2x more likely than in a single. I say "at least" because of longer control runs (both cables and wiring). In practice, a given-budget pilot is likely to be flying a much older twin than a single, which makes the reliability scenario even worse.

There is no doubt that enroute this is far less likely to be a problem (exceptions include having terrain above the SE ceiling for the current weight, etc) than in a single.

But once you land you are stuck there. So with a twin you are 2x more likely to be stuck somewhere due to an engine problem than with a single.

However, total engine failures are very rare, which is no doubt why so many pilots vote with their wallets and spend their money on a better equipped and better condition single. I certainly would, every time.

[Keygrip]

Keygrip shakes his head and sighs.

BartV - I was being flippant. (No! Not the dolphin).

[echobeach]

First Principal.

Long held interest in flying DC3s stimulated by flying in the back of one of these around Central America many years ago. Recent trip to Tempelhof to relive route flown by many of these craft in Berlin airlift.

Always felt would like to have flown these for a living (but that was many years ago in one's youth !)

EB

[First_Principal]

Lucky you to fly the airlift route! I first read of it in Leon Uris' Armageddon and of course 'Air Bridge' amongst others. It was a tremendous undertaking and something that will be a lasting tribute to the DC3 as well as all the people involved.

It's funny you mentioned it because the first time I put my hands on the control wheel of a DC3 the Berlin airlift was what I thought about - and I've often talked about it since. There is such a sense of taking part in history when one flys - or works on - one of these. It's something akin to the rate of the current computer revolution to think that it was only thrity years after the Wright Bros that the DC3 first flew but I doubt somehow that we'll see computers still working, usefully, 70 or more years later :}

So well done on the MER, I don't know what working Daks there are in your neck of the woods but I hope you get the chance to fly one. Like any tailwheel machine they're a bit tricky to taxi and of course you initially push the control column in different directions than the Seneca when you're taking off or landing :ooh: but they're definately worth hanging out for if you get the opportunity. A lot noisier, consume as many gallons an hour as the Seneca does litres, they leak too, but it's all part of the character that makes a DC3.

Cheers, FP.